Continued: Cedar Fair announces Geauga Lake will be water park only

Ensign Smith said:
"Just like you can never tell an old car lover that his '63 Mustang is just a machine. You could tell him, but he won't hear you."

No, you call him a liar because the first Mustang didn't roll of the production line until March of 64

No, I actually propose your "I feel bad, but I think the park..." statement.

By intertwined, I meant someone saying, "You can't feel bad because I think the park made the right decision" or "I feel bad therefore they made the wrong decision".

- Jeff

LOL..."I think if any of the previous owners had made better decisions, I might not have to feel bad about the park closing?

Nonetheless, whether the waterpark succeeds or not, it's a time-limited gig until property values (and taxes) dictate a sell-off. These factors probably would have led to the *eventual* demise of GL anyway. But my guess is that SF took about 10-15 years off the life of GL by overexpanding, and CF probably about 5-7 years by not removing the most capital-intensive assets earlier.

---

Jeff said:

---

RatherGoodBear said:
I'm still not seeing why the only viable option was to close the entire rides side. If you figure out you're getting 700,000-800,000 people or so, why not tailor the park to that number of guests? If that means removing some rides, relocating others within the park, adding some newer but smaller attractions, so be it.

---

Two words: Property tax. Removing a few rides doesn't remove that burden.

---

First of all, my two paragraph post was only intended to mention a few possibilities, not represent the entire gamut. If property tax is THE issue (which you're claiming now), then why not consolidate the rides in one part of the land and sell off the excess? You make money from a land sale, have a smaller park that still brings in 25-30 million for the chain, pay less taxes, and can still send excess rides to your other parks.

I know, I know, the answer is DickieKinz said this is the only way, and as we all know, he's always right. In fact, anyone who knows anything about business is always right, because as we all know, nobody in business has ever done anything wrong.

Wow, this thread is like those old Energizer bunny ads. It's over. 7/8 of the people understand the decision, are a bit disappointed or are real disappointed, but have moved on. 1/8 of the people are going to treat this like Area 57 and will never give up.

DickieKinz wasn't the only person who said this is the only way. A Board of Directors with decades of experience, a management team with a combined hundred or more years of experience and two other companies have ALSO said GL was a no win proposition. What else do you need to satisfy your skepticism?

---

wahoo skipper said: What else do you need to satisfy your skepticism?

---

Nothing will satisfy these budding Fox Mulders.

"The truth is out there." :)

-Tambo

---

Uncle Coaster said:

If they are arguing the business side with their feelers on (so to speak), then yes they are flawed.

---

That's been my complaint for a long time. As soon as a "feeler" reiterates his/her point, the "thinkers" chime in and more or less insist that person has no grasp on the concept of business. But maybe it goes both ways... maybe the "feelers" are too quick to suggest the "thinkers" cold, heartless bastards.

I don't think that's a fair or complete assessment, Rob. The "feeler's" point is usually grounds for why the business didn't work, and what Cedar Fair should have done. I'm not saying that's the case every time, but at least for me, that's what I respond to. If it's just a, "What a bummer," kind of post, I honestly have no issue with that.

---

RatherGoodBear said:
I know, I know, the answer is DickieKinz said this is the only way, and as we all know, he's always right. In fact, anyone who knows anything about business is always right, because as we all know, nobody in business has ever done anything wrong.

---

Can you show me where anyone is saying that? You'd make a stronger point if it wasn't filled with sarcastic "always right," "we all know" and "nobody has ever" statements. I'm pretty sure we've all said Cedar Fair failed, a lot of times, in fact.

And they are apparently doing exactly what you're suggesting. They're shrinking the park to the portion that was most popular and, fortunately, entertained the most people at the lowest cost. Makes sense to me. Hopefully the people will come.

---

rollergator said:
...and CF probably about 5-7 years by not removing the most capital-intensive assets earlier.

---

You know, in 2004 I would've told you that you were totally wrong, because I thought they could get that 1.1 million they craved. But then again, I don't know if any of us would have anticipated the "Shamu effect" back then either. Obviously Cedar Fair didn't.

---

Jeff said:
I don't think that's a fair or complete assessment, Rob. The "feeler's" point is usually grounds for why the business didn't work, and what Cedar Fair should have done. I'm not saying that's the case every time, but at least for me, that's what I respond to. If it's just a, "What a bummer," kind of post, I honestly have no issue with that.

---

I agree and disagree.

The feelers (we need to come up with another term because that one sounds perverted) obviously base the majority of their statements on emotions, but that doesn't mean they don't bring something business-related to the table. Some feelers come forth with some pretty wacky stuff, but a lot come forth with things that make a lot of sense, or are perfectly valid in a debate. I truly believe Cedar Fair should have replaced some of Geauga Lake's thrill rides with more family-oriented stuff- just because I'm more a feeler than a thinker, that makes my point invalid? I don't see why that can't be argued.

I understand there are logical explainations for why certain business decisions are made, but that doesn't mean they're all right. That opens the door for opposing ideas, even if they're coming from the feelers.

Well if it makes any difference, I don't lump you in with the "radical feelers," Rob. :)

I would contend that Geauga Lake already had a whole lot of family-oriented stuff, maybe even too much for a park that size. It was spread out all over the place, for sure, but it was there.

It did have some good family attractions, but it needed new rides. If there was going to be massive subtraction, there should have been some addition, even if it was minor. The removal of rides probably would have gone over a lot better if there was something new in their places. You can't market "two coasters removed" but you can market "new [darkride] and [spinning ride]." Geauga Lake would have been good as a Lake Compounce-sized park, and Lake Compounce added a simple car ride... and supposedly did very well in 2007, partially because of that little addition.

Glad to be considered not-so-radical a feeler... does that make me a thinking feeler... or a feeling thinker? ;)

I just don't think small rides have any true marketability, not in this state anyway. It wouldn't even get noticed. Plus you negate the savings of eliminating the big rides.

So then what was the plan? To downsize the park until there was nothing left? That's what was going to happen if nothing was added to replace the removed rides.

I believe that small, family rides would have been excellent from a marketability standpoint. Cedar Point obviously has the attention of thrill-seekers, so why not have molded Geauga Lake as the anti-CP? That way you get the best of both worlds. If you like CP, go to CP. If you don't like CP, go to Geauga Lake. Better to give people both options instead of one.

You can do amazing things with marketing- anything can be spun into news. A good marketing firm would find a way to get people to care about something small and family-oriented.

It took them, what, three seasons to decide to downsize? It really wasn't part of the plan before then, but it was too little too late. That, and it may not have mattered.

Two agencies had their crack at selling the park, and neither one had the impact they hoped for. Throwing capital at the park, for coasters or otherwise, I don't think would matter. Well, with the exception of water rides. The water park did very well based on its line up, which makes the decision to focus on it logical to me.

We can play out could've/should've scenarios, but at what time and expense? I know that's a central tenant of a lot of people's arguments, but at some point you have to cut your losses and move on. I can't treat trying to make the amusement park work as the point of failure as much as I think buying the park as the point of failure, especially given the "Shamu effect" as I like to call it. That's my beef with the company. It was a bad idea to buy in the first place.

Chalk me up as thinking the Cedar Fair purchase of GL was a good idea. I thought it would work. I did not forsee the Shamu effect. (And, to be honest, I don't think any other whale would have helped.)

Heck, I worked at GL for 5 years and did not realize the impact Sea World had on the GL attendance. Maybe the folks at Funtime did...but I just don't know. Actually, I spent part of a summer doing marketing surveys and while I seem to remember a question on that survey along the lines of, "what other attractions did you go to while in the area" I don't remember the question being specific enough to determine if Sea World was their reason for coming and GL was an afterthought as they looked across the lake. Those numbers would have been important in hindsight.

Rob might be right. Maybe they could have marketed GL as the anti CP and it would have helped. I mean, the real success at GL came from unique additions, even if they weren't big coasters. The Wave and correspoding growth of the water park (included in the park price), Rainbow Island and the Turtle Beach area. Those were things that CP did not have and they really made a difference in the attendance at GL.

But, it is hard to put springs back in the bottle. Once Six Flags decided to push the envelope and go for the throat, add the big rides, etc it just may not have been possible to go back. I mean, I really like the TV I have now. There isn't anything wrong with it even though it isn't the newest, biggest, greatest out there. But, if someone gave me a HD flat screen and I got to use it for a year and then they wanted to give me my old tv back...well...I'm pretty sure that old tv wouldn't look as appealing. They could wash the old tv...maybe throw in an extra cable channel or two......but it just wouldn't do it anymore.

I think wahoo may have made the most cogent observation of all. Maybe there really wasn't any going back . . . but I still would have liked to see Cedar Fair try harder. They could have divvied out one too big thrill ride a year, using the savings over buying new attractions for sister parks to offset some of the debatable red ink on GL's ledgers, with some left over annually for something new and more appropriate for the family park they were attempting to rebrand it as. Now, do I get the award for best run on sentence? Thank you.

Jeff, I hear you say we need to cut our losses and move on, but do you think five weeks is really long enough for this discussion? I think there's a lot left to be said. Of course, it's your site . . .

And I would beg to differ that small rides DO have marketability, even in the state of giants. Heck, Maverick is smaller than Gemini and look at its success already. It may not be bringing in more customers (frankly, I don't think there's anything CP could build at this point to achieve that), but among folks at the park, it seems like a winning attraction based on its lines. You don't think they could have built a $3 million, Gravity Group, 80 foot tall woodie and sold it? Then CF's marketing department must really suck indeed. *** Edited 10/19/2007 9:20:05 PM UTC by Ensign Smith***

Maverick might be small in size, but certainly not in cost. And I really don't think a woodie can be hyped as much as a $10+million steel coaster.

Maverick is certainly not a small ride in any way other than height. It's as fast as Magnum. You can wish they'd "try harder" all you want, it wouldn't have made a difference.

Watch your tone about the marketing people. Those are my friends. One was even in my wedding. As is the case in any mid-sized company that spends as heavily on marketing, it's not their job to come up with the creative for a campaign, it's the agency's. Companies of that size don't retain that kind of expertise in-house. Furthermore, throwing money at the marketing, and they spent an awful lot on it this year, has the same issue that capital does. There's a scale of diminishing returns there.

---

ApolloAndy said:
Maverick might be small in size, but certainly not in cost. And I really don't think a woodie can be hyped as much as a $10+million steel coaster.

---

I beg to differ with that if it's a woodie like El Toro. That ride is worth the hype it gets (or should get) and even more. The GP loves that ride as much as we do and it deserves every ounce of praise or hype it gets. Any park would do well installing one of those in their park.